Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Lisa Furlong on behalf of South Dakotan’s for Fair Lending turned in what a source tells me was an incredible 60,287 signatures to place their ballot measure to limit the loan rate for short term loans to 18% in front of South Dakotans.  Slightly more than the number turned in for the Marsy’s law petition this week, it may set a new record for the number of signatures obtained.

It also stacks up against the Hildebrand petition as gathering an incredible 3 times the number.

And hold on to your hats…. There’s more to come on this story!

60k signatures submitted for constitutional amendment ballot question limiting interest rates (18%) pic.twitter.com/0dfR5We206

— Shantel Krebs (@SOSKrebs) November 5, 2015

Senate Democrats Block Defense Funding Bill Again

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today issued the following statement on the Senate Democrats’ filibuster of the Department of Defense (DoD) appropriations bill for the third time this year, following the budget deal of last week:

“Refusing to debate the 12 appropriation bills which provide the necessary funds to keep the government running, simply to create a crisis, is not acceptable,” said Rounds. “Yet again, Senate Democrats blocked an important appropriations bill from being openly debated and amended on the Senate floor, despite receiving overwhelming bipartisan support when it was reported out of committee earlier this year. It will also comply with the funding levels agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which many Senate Democrats supported and the President signed less than a week ago. But most importantly, this defense appropriations bill will provide our military members and their families with the certainty and stability that they deserve. The United States continues to face new and evolving threats, both at home and abroad. Providing our troops with the tools and support they need to complete their missions is critical.”

###

Thune Statement on Bill to Overturn
Far-Reaching WOTUS Rule

“This rule … extends the reach of the federal
government to the ponds, ditches, and streams in
Americans’ backyards.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued the following statement after a majority of Senate Democrats blocked the Federal Water Quality Protection Act (S. 1140), legislation which would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule:

“The Obama EPA’s WOTUS rule – of the largest federal land grabs in history – is yet another example of this administration’s fondness for regulatory overreach. This rule threatens more fines and increased costs for farmers, ranchers, and landowners in every corner of my state and extends the reach of the federal government to the ponds, ditches, and streams in Americans’ backyards. Unfortunately, a majority of Senate Democrats blocked an opportunity to stop this rule, but my colleagues and I will continue to fight to overturn this massive overstep.”

Thune is a co-sponsor of the Federal Water Quality Protection Act. This bipartisan bill would direct the EPA to scrap its current proposal and ensure future proposals do not include ponds, ditches, agriculture water, storm water, and certain other areas not typically regulated under the federal Clean Water Act.

The WOTUS rule has proved problematic across the country. Already, 31 states have filed lawsuits against the WOTUS rule. An October decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended to all 50 states an earlier injunction from a federal district court that blocked implementation in 13 states, including South Dakota.

Thune urged his colleagues to support the Federal Water Quality Protection Act earlier today on the Senate floor. Click here to watch Thune’s remarks.

###

Apparently, it’s a slow news day in Aberdeen. A very slow news day.

The local newspaper which claims they’re not biased against Republicans today has a front page story on how Democrats are holding a meeting to try to gin up some interest in the once proud, but faltering Democrat party by hauling out some of the core liberal leadership.

They’re having a meeting, so that’s front page worthy?:

“We’re hoping that from this event people will see what the citizens of the community have on their minds,” Jennifer Slaight-Hansen, a member of the Aberdeen City Council and chairwoman of the Brown County Democratic Party, said. “Are we on the right track? Do we know the pulse of the people?”

The panelists are hosted by the Brown County Democratic Party. Although one panelist is a current state senator, none of the panelists are currently seeking office.

Panelists include:

• Cory Heidelberger, political blogger.
• Billie Sutton, state senator from Burke.
• Ann Tornberg, chairwoman of the South Dakota Democratic Party.
• Kathy Tyler, former legislator.
• Susan Wismer, former South Dakota gubernatorial candidate.

Read it here.

Interesting they left the party ED back in Sioux Falls for this Dog & Pony show.  Apparently, they want to insulate her from the bomb throwing. Looking at the composition of the group, it’s not looking like most of them are mainstream democrats. Or mainstream South Dakotans for that matter. As opposed to being comprised of the most liberal views  of the SDDP. (Billie Sutton might want to consider the company he keeps if he wants to run for higher office).

A “front porch forum” hardly sounds descriptive. Instead, maybe riffing off of some of their viewpoints, they could call it the “Godless Abortion Gunless Democrat” meeting or “GAG’s” for short.  While Democrat’s grinder monkey Cory proselytizes his atheism, Kathy Tyler can explain why she believes Jesus was in favor of abortion, and Ann Tornberg can explain her party’s position on Gun Control.

Why, I’m sure they’ll be able to GAG people in Brown county from miles away once they hear what the SDDP’s liberal core has to say!

I’m not sure there’s a takeaway from this, other than for Republicans  – make sure you ask for front page coverage next time you have a meeting.

Rounds, Ernst Call for Strengthened Support of
Kurdish Peshmerga Forces in Iraq

WASHINGTON— Following a recent Congressional delegation trip to the Middle East, U.S. Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) today sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter raising serious concerns voiced by foreign leaders in the region. The senators echoed concerns that the coalition effort to defeat ISIL is not achieving the desired outcome – including U.S. support for the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and their Peshmerga Forces. They also called on Secretary Carter in their letter to strengthen support to the KRG. The letter comes on the heels of the Obama Administration’s recent decision to deploy U.S. personnel to Kurdish territory in Syria.

“Unfortunately, the picture provided to us in theater is starkly different from that which is provided to the American people, and to us as elected officials in the Senate and members of the Senate Armed Services Committee,” the senators wrote. “Specifically, it does not appear that coalition efforts are having the Administration’s desired ‘degrade and destroy’ effects against ISIL.”

The senators continued, “While visiting Iraq, our meeting with foreign officials painted a grim picture of the U.S. and coalition effort against ISIL. In particular, our time on the ground did not alleviate our long-standing concerns about inadequate U.S. support to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and their Peshmerga forces.”

“In conclusion, we ask the Department to strengthen its support to the KRG based on the troubling operational situation in large portions of Iraq, the dedication of the Kurdish Peshmerga in their fight against ISIL, and KRG support provided to the over 1.6 million displaced persons within their territory.”

Full text of the letter:

November 2, 2015

The Honorable Ashton Carter
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Carter:

We write to you today to raise concern regarding our coalition effort to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and support to our Iraqi Kurdish partners.

We recently returned from meeting with U.S. servicemembers and foreign leaders throughout Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the picture provided to us in theater is starkly different from that which is provided to the American people, and to us as elected officials in the Senate and members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Specifically, it does not appear that coalition efforts are having the Administration’s desired “degrade and destroy” effects against ISIL.

While visiting Iraq, our meeting with foreign officials painted a grim picture of the U.S. and coalition effort against ISIL. In particular, our time on the ground did not alleviate our long-standing concerns about inadequate U.S. support to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and their Peshmerga forces.

While meeting with our KRG allies in Erbil, we were again informed the military support promised to them from Baghdad is far from being provided, and the level of support, such as adequate stocks of small arms ammunition, is not enough to effectively defend their territory against ISIL. Furthermore, the coalition’s piecemeal supply of various Russian and NATO weapons and ammunition makes resupply extremely difficult for Peshmerga forces—as it would for U.S. forces if faced with a similar logistical situation. The KRG also informed us that they require heavier weapons, more equipment in general, and protective gear—as already provided to ISF units for a number of years—to more effectively defend their territory. As this is something we specifically worked to achieve via the NDAA, we have heightened concerns for the needs of our allies on the front lines against ISIL.

In conclusion, we ask the Department to strengthen its support to the KRG based on the troubling operational situation in large portions of Iraq, the dedication of the Kurdish Peshmerga in their fight against ISIL, and KRG support provided to the over 1.6 million displaced persons within their territory. Specifically we ask your views on what additional measures the United States can take to support our Kurdish allies.

Sincerely,

###

The Pot Legalization effort is going no farther this year as petition sponsor Ryan Gaddy confirms to KCCR Radio that they’re not going to make the required number of signatures for the ballot:

South Dakotans Against Prohibition Founder Ryan Gaddy says although they won’t see their issue on the ballot in 2016, they did see an uptick in registered voters thanks to their push.

Gaddy adds that the reason why they were not successful this year strictly had to do with dollars…

As the date nears on South Dakotans with the opening of the Flandrea Santee Sioux Tribe’s Marijuana Lounge on New Year’s Eve, Gaddy says the decriminalization law might not die as early as some think. He says that with all the issues surrounding the enforcement of marijuana possession amongst non-natives, state lawmakers will have to pass some type of decriminalization law.

Read (and Listen) to it all here.

Apparently last night, it was good to be the king.

People who look a lot like @MattLG & Karen Michels are greeting trick-or-treaters at the Govs Mansion @SDGovDaugaard pic.twitter.com/NtxFPdFCKM

— Tony Venhuizen (@Tony_Venhuizen) October 31, 2015

I posted a similar photo 2 years ago, and noticed it got a bit of chatter, so I grabbed this from facebook  when I saw Ted Cruz is back in Iowa hunting with Dan Lederman again this year.

Culture Change Needed at the IRS
By Sen. John Thune

There are few, if any, federal agencies that elicit a more visceral reaction from the American people than the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS wields an enormous amount of power – enough to topple businesses or crush families. When that power is used improperly or outside the scope of the law, it can have a devastating impact on everyone left in its wake. As a result of its egregious abuse of power, including the unfair targeting of conservative groups, the IRS is in desperate need of a top-to-bottom culture change that would help restore its credibility to a level that the American people both expect and deserve.

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the IRS, I recently had the opportunity to raise some of these concerns directly with IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. My primary recommendation to the commissioner was to fully implement the provisions of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Enhancement Act, a bill that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and I introduced earlier this year.

Our bill would create new protections for taxpayers, strengthen and update safeguards against abuse that are already on the books, and punish bad actors at the IRS. Specifically, the bill would significantly increase civil damages and criminal penalties for improperly using or accessing taxpayer information. Americans should not have to fear that politics could play a role in their confidential tax information being disclosed to an unauthorized third party, that they will be targeted based on their political beliefs, or that the IRS will not retain its employees’ emails, like we saw with Lois Lerner.

I also believe that IRS employees should be held to a higher standard, which is why I co-sponsored the No Bonuses for Tax Cheats Act, which says to hard-working Americans that the federal bureaucrats who collect their taxes have the same responsibility they do in fulfilling tax obligations. The bill would withhold bonuses and pay increases from IRS employees who are willfully cheating on their taxes or otherwise engaged in misconduct.

According to a 2014 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report, the IRS doled out nearly $3 million in bonuses and paid leave time to tax-delinquent IRS employees or employees who had documented cases of improper behavior. Rewarding such behavior defies logic, and I’m hopeful this common-sense legislation will become law.

The American people have every right to be skeptical of federal government agencies like the IRS because they haven’t given the American people any reason to think differently. That’s one of the biggest problems facing the federal government today – a lack of trust and credibility. We can do better. The American people deserve better. Passing common-sense bills like the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Enhancement Act and the No Bonuses for Tax Cheats Act would be a big step in the right direction.

###

Perpetual Conservation Easements: Forever Is a Long Time
By Senator Mike Rounds
October 30, 2015

In South Dakota, we take great pride in our land. We rely on our vast natural resources for nearly every aspect of our lives: to provide clean water, maximize ag production, provide recreation, attract tourism and more. As such, we are good stewards of our land and are willing to work with state, federal and local governments to keep it in tact for future generations. However, when it comes to permanent conservation easements, I have never been a fan. I am in favor of giving landowners the option to enter into shorter-term, renewable contracts with the federal government. Termed easements are more likely to keep the landowner and the grantee on equal footing and would result in greater public access to these lands.

A permanent conservation easement is a legally-binding agreement between a land owner and the government or in some cases, a non-profit group. The landowner is the grantee that places restrictions on the land and typically opens it up to public access in exchange for landowner tax benefits.  Today, these conservation easement contracts are forever, they pass down through the generations or from seller to buyer.

I understand that – in some cases – permanent easements have their place.  If a family is fully informed as to the effects, or if we’re talking about public utilities or infrastructure – permanent easements can serve the greater good.

There have been plenty of passionate debates over property rights in South Dakota over the years – in the State Capitol while I worked as a state senator and governor and even around my own dinner table.  My family comes from a long line of hunters and conservationists. We’re also landowners and staunch supporters of property rights. We’ve developed our own working farm into a pheasant hunting paradise, through sound management and conservation. My family, like many South Dakota families, is a reflection of South Dakota’s rural and urban population. That diverse blend of South Dakota perspective makes me believe there’s a better way to protect our land, conserve habitat and honor individual property rights.

An important point that gets lost in the discussion surrounding permanent conservation easements is that perpetual means forever. The legally-binding contract with the federal government continues even when land is passed down within the family or sold to a new owner. The economic and ecological changes that we’ll see over the coming years cannot be predetermined, and yet the government or the grantee essentially bans certain enhancement without regard to those inevitable changes – thus locking the landowner and their heirs into a contract that is unlikely to ever be revisited.

For example, thinning efforts within forests can help deter the threat of forest fires in the Black Hills and elsewhere.  But, if the land is locked in to a permanent conservation easement and the federal government chooses to strictly abide by the terms of the contract, a permanent easement may not allow for necessary logging or underbrush thinning which increases the risk of a damaging forest fire.  Another example is that farming practices will continue to evolve over time.  A piece of valuable habitat today may not be as valuable 100 years from now, so it seems rash to put limitations on the location of certain public access points.

I’ve suggested that greater optionality for landowners would benefit everyone. Landowners have told me that they’d be more inclined to enter into an agreement with the government if they also had the option of a short-term, renewable contract as opposed to a permanent contract. Those shorter term contracts – 10 or 20 years, for example –should have the same tax benefits as a permanent easement.  And, termed conservation easements may be a better fit for someone who isn’t interested in tying up their property forever. A termed conservation easement is more likely to keep the landowner and the grantee on equal footing.  The government would have to treat the landowner fairly in order to have the easement renewed. They could not arbitrarily impose heavy-handed fines for minor, often mistaken, violations of the easement contract.  I believe more landowner options would result in greater public access.

If our goal is to increase habitat development and provide greater public access, more options seems like a good compromise. Forever is a long time and I’d rather we be stewards of the land, not stewards of the government.

###